[quote:bc9d354ad0="3cigarettes"]I'm going to lament the fact that the area I live in is going to be predominantly voting for the DUP and no matter what I do it's a lost cause.[/quote:bc9d354ad0]
I live in Carrick. Sounds like we are in a similar situation. Most of the election posters round here frighten small children. I feel very unrepresented.

I rarely vote - there really is no-one I want to vote for that has any chance of winning, so what is the point?

And don't bother with the whole 'nothing's going to change with that attitude', because everyone on here knows that the area they live in is more often than not a 2 horse race (quite often less than that even).

It's an easily demonstrated fact that in most constituencies there's a less than 50% voter turnout. If we assume that half of them aren't voting because they assume that the 2 front runners (taig/prod or stoop/shinner) are the only ones in the race, but they would vote for someone else, IF THEY THOUGHT THEY'd WIN. If they did actually vote, then someone else WOULD WIN. Especially under a PR system.

Driving through Newry the other day I couldn't help but notice the local Sinn Fein candidate looks a lot like Frank Gallagher from shameless :)

In all seriousness though, is there a vaguely objective means of comparing the parties, like for example a website that shows their various stances across a range of issues? I don't want to read their own websites as I know it'll be pure propaganda.
I got a DUP flyer through the door the other day that had a list of everything good that has happened in Lisburn since the DUP have been in charge. Most of it was purely coincidental or at best loosely correlational.

Taking North Down as an example (admittedly cause it had more floating voters and lower turnout than average)

I am going to attempt to demonstrate that if half the people who didn't vote DID vote, and half of them again voted for a single candidate, along with transfers, that the results would be very different.

The turnout at the 2003 Assembly elections was 54.5% with a 1.5% spoiled ballot rate.

Now you'll see that Eileen Bell only had 6.3% of the 1st preference votes, but recieved a large amount of 2nd preference votes, especially from the smaller parties eliminated in the first round.

Now in that Election the women's coalition, got 3.8% of first preference, and the Green's got 2.4%

So if say another 20% of people voted, who had originally decided that they would not vote because the party they wanted to vote for had no chance. And half of those voted each for NIWC and the Green Party, and lets assume they transfer between the two quite a lot.

This is the tricky maths bit to get right

There are 57, 422 voters in North Down.
Originally 30,800 valid votes were cast, in my scenario this would increase from 54.5% to 74.5% meaning the total number voting would be 42,779.

The &quot;quota&quot; that is the number of 1st preference votes which would automatically get you elected (the number of seats available +1 into the number of votes) Basically meaning that if 1/7 of the population vote for you, you get 1 out of the 6 seats. Originally the quota was 4406, but is now 6111. Nobody reached the original quota and they are miles away from the new one. All of the percentages are now less than 10% for each of the elected candidates.

The difference between the original vote, and the extra voters is 11,979 extra votes, for the Green Party and NIWC.

Lets divide them equally to give 5990 votes to each party, add that to the existing votes (730+5990=6720) for the Greens - ELECTED ON FIRST COUNT as having reached the quota.
(1181+5990=7171) for the NIWC- ELECTED ON FIRST COUNT.

These moderate candidates would be likely to displace the DUP and UKUP candidates.(Sir Bob himself!) I am really not going to attempt to explain that the left over votes above the quota are then transferred to the 2nd preference, again increasing voter share for the marginal parties (such as Brian Wilson (Independent Environmental) sitting on 4.4% again upsetting the result.

So it could have easily been 1 seat for NIWC, 1 for the Greens, 1 for Alliance, 1 for and Independent Environmentalist, 1 DUP and 1 UUP. Which is very different.

So just a 20% increase in voter activity for minority parties CAN make a massive difference, just over 10,000 people. So get off your hole and vote.

Ron but what your saying is you can see the sense in voting perfectly, but you're not going to because you can't see the sense in it? :-)
[quote:2a3546f075]
When you're in a situation where you look at all the posters and flyers and feel more like crying than voting, what's to do?[/quote:2a3546f075]

Rainbow George all the way, he's a sound punter, who genuinely seems to want to help people - I bet ye if you phoned him and told him the hoods had stole your wheely bin, he'd be on to the peelers for ye in a shot.

It's true that you can vote for the Green Party or other fringe as protest votes, but ultimately I wouldn't even want those people in power either.

The insinuation that you cannot critique the democratic process unless you have exhausted all options even to the point of running yourself ignores the fact that while you may be bitter about the choices, you simple don't care ENOUGH to run yourself. (For a number of reasons, such as not having a chance unless you spew bigotry anyway). Not to mention it impedes upon the basic concept of free spech in defense of ignorance and partisanship (that's a whole other argument - but seriously, stop that shít)

I guess none of us care ENOUGH, since none of us are candidates, it doesn't meant mean we cannot lament the state of Northern Irish politics.

From the perspective of someone who works in the mediation sector (on a voluntary basis mind) it's still depressing having to watch the diabolical nature of the elected representatives of certain places holding progress up in favour of old time bigotry and historical ignorance. Time and time again. Maybe Feline has some answers though, he appears to believe he's intellectually relevant.

It's boring to watch, it'd be nicer to have some legitimate politicians with a bit of a more progressive message and even an ounce of charisma beyond blatant sectarian hatred, and anyone who disagrees is holding the whole process up.

I suppose there's no way out of this and we're all just repeating the same old diatribe every election runaround.

[quote:757505c197]No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.[/quote:757505c197]

[quote:f45b92f808]Quote:
No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.[/quote:f45b92f808]

you seem to have misunderstood what Churchill meant to convey in that quote. re-read it and EMPHASISE the EXCEPT.
i am not standing up for voting electoral politics YET in this debate the churchill quote does not demonise democracy. It holds it up as necessary versus &quot;all those other forms&quot;.

anto has a point - the math is sound. If those of us whom can vote, there could be a different outcome. (go greens)

People who don't vote banging on about how pish our polictical system is laughable. At least vote for the Greens, or the comedy party, or the token socialist, or the Womens Colalition, or spoil your vote, but at least take part!

God, this thread is ahiiiiiiiine -
despite us having a very similar thread mere months ago,
it's clear that, even on Fastfude, great chunks of people considered old-and-responsible-enough to vote haven't the
most basic understanding of how to work the democratic process, and wouldn't know a mandate from a man-date.

All this just really goes to demonstrate how democracy can be a load of balls, as all it really means is that lots of stoopid people get to influence how the world is run.

[quote:9c7c737fe3="Speed Demon"][quote:9c7c737fe3="Zwaddap_deep_doo"]Fiver and a kick in the balls for anyone who reads all of that.[/quote:9c7c737fe3]&quot;Look at me - I'm too stupid to understand politics.&quot;[/quote:9c7c737fe3]

I don't understand not voting, especially in a PR system. If you don't bother having your say, how can you complain when the results come out? The ongoing sectarian basis for politics here is frustrating, but that's all the more reason to get out and vote for the Alliance, Green, Socialists, Rainbow George, *gulp* Conservatives, whoever. The sooner we have proper left/right politics as opposed to the prod/taig divide the better, but it's never going to change if the current minority parties don't pick up votes.

[quote:90195a0686="Crackity_jones"]I don't understand not voting, especially in a PR system. If you don't bother having your say, how can you complain when the results come out? The ongoing sectarian basis for politics here is frustrating, but that's all the more reason to get out and vote for the Alliance, Green, Socialists, Rainbow George, *gulp* Conservatives, whoever. The sooner we have proper left/right politics as opposed to the prod/taig divide the better, but it's never going to change if the current minority parties don't pick up votes.[/quote:90195a0686]

Whats not to understand? Some people just don't vote. I wasn't able to vote once or twice because of travel restrictions to and from a job, and again because I didn't want to give a vote to any of the potentials. I didn't complain about who came into power, and I am not laughable for what I didn't do. Voting is a choice, and should not be something we do for the sake of it. Whoever is not voting NOW may vote at a later stage when they feel that someone deserves their vote, and they could still 'make a difference'. People who don't vote shouldn't be shunned or bullied...

[quote:790e41100c="remedy malahide"]People who don't vote shouldn't be shunned or bullied...[/quote:790e41100c]

Yes they should,
cos (especially in first-past-the-post, but in PR too) they bolster a tacit mandate for the w@nkers that the lumpen majority vote for.
And what kind of job won't let you go to a polling station to vote? That's unsane.

[quote:8cac309997="remedy malahide"][quote:8cac309997="Crackity_jones"]I don't understand not voting, especially in a PR system. If you don't bother having your say, how can you complain when the results come out? The ongoing sectarian basis for politics here is frustrating, but that's all the more reason to get out and vote for the Alliance, Green, Socialists, Rainbow George, *gulp* Conservatives, whoever. The sooner we have proper left/right politics as opposed to the prod/taig divide the better, but it's never going to change if the current minority parties don't pick up votes.[/quote:8cac309997]

Whats not to understand? Some people just don't vote. I wasn't able to vote once or twice because of travel restrictions to and from a job, and again because I didn't want to give a vote to any of the potentials. I didn't complain about who came into power, and I am not laughable for what I didn't do. Voting is a choice, and should not be something we do for the sake of it. Whoever is not voting NOW may vote at a later stage when they feel that someone deserves their vote, and they could still 'make a difference'. People who don't vote shouldn't be shunned or bullied...[/quote:8cac309997]

I'm not shunning or bullying anyone, I just think that voting is something everyone should do. And I didn't say it was laughable not to, though someone else may have done. It's a free country obv and you don't have to, but that's just my opinion. A society is healthiest when people participate in the democratic process. It's not perfect, but it's the best system we have.

[quote:2a8d53267b="Crackity_jones"]It's a free country [/quote:2a8d53267b]

No it's not, it's a directly-ruled (by Order in Privy Council) province of the Haus of Saxe-Coburg, with most of the ground owned directly by ludicrous descendents of various Plantagenate Barons, such as Lough Neagh, which is the personal piss pool of the Earl of Shaftesbury.

&quot;I'm not shunning or bullying anyone, I just think that voting is something everyone should do. And I didn't say it was laughable not to, though someone else may have done. It's a free country obv and you don't have to, but that's just my opinion. A society is healthiest when people participate in the democratic process. It's not perfect, but it's the best system we have. &quot;

Someone else did mention it was laughable Crackity, sorry :wink: , I only meant to quote the first 5 words of your post.

It was the travel to and from the job that restricted me feline, and no they shouldn't be bullied 'cause that'd really get them rared up to hit the polling stations. The people who'd be doing the bullying should just apply for leglislation to enforce voting for political parties.
These &quot;w@nkers&quot; will always find a way anywho, regardless of votes...

of course you should have the right not to vote, and also to complain about it.

If you complain about the mechanism of the democratic system, why should you work with it?

If you don't accept the authority of democratic rule, why should you give &quot;Democracy&quot; a mandate?

By not voting you're not in any way giving a tacit mandate to whoever wins.....that's absolutely ridiculous.
It's like saying Republicans were giving six county rule a mandate for years by abstentionism.

If everybody who didn't vote, did vote, it would make very little difference, unless they all voted the same way....which they obviously wouldn't. If all those people who don't vote could agree to go out and vote the same way, they probably would have done, and the issue of not voting wouldn't bucking arise.

I'd imagine it's precisely in the nature of those who don't vote that they do so for a myriad of different reasons. If there was a voting option for each of those different reasons, I suspect there's be quite a few options, and a ridiculously fractured vote, thus making next to no difference.

It might make a difference to smaller parties who are on the verge of winning the seat......but if people want to vote for those parties, they will.......why should they vote for a party they don't even want, to register the opnion they don't even hold?

Daft f[b:6b52434c6d][/b:6b52434c6d]ucking stupidly naive arguments are brought into this everytime

I saw you on that repeat of THE DAY TODAY on BBC4 last week, don't think I didn't. You did that one about the sheepdog landing a helicopter, in between Collatelie Sisters, Rosie May and Alan Partridge.

I saw you on that repeat of THE DAY TODAY on BBC4 last week, don't think I didn't. You did that one about the sheepdog landing a helicopter, in between Collatelie Sisters, Rosie May and Alan Partridge.[/quote:e106baf94b]

:lol:
FACT X IMPORTANCE = NEWS

MALAHIDE: Photo actuality now, and Mrs Mandy Hell captured these snaps while out walking her brother on Wandsworth Common. The unnamed woman had been pierced by a shaft of frozen urine which had fallen from the toilet facility of an overhead plane.

[A dead woman is lying on the grass. Protruding from her stomach is a ten foot long yellow icicle.]

You mean that post that presupposed that at least half of people who don't vote [i:25aeb53a8d]would[/i:25aeb53a8d] vote the same way?

And is therefore absolute nonsense. As I've said, if all those people who don't vote would be likely to vote the same way, then I'd imagine they would have already voted in that way, safe in the knowledge that so many people agree with them.

This is all just supposition, naivete and optimism.

don't you read these posts that you decide you're gonna provide a knock down answer to?

[quote:bfc9f4c30f="Chi-Lite"]don't you read these posts that you decide you're gonna provide a knock down answer to?[/quote:bfc9f4c30f]No, I'm just overcome by contempt for people who whine about &quot;tha system&quot;.

and you complain about people being [i:f17b6b86e5]apathetic[/i:f17b6b86e5]

Personally, I have contempt for people who are so complacent that they think everything's alright, if only people would realise it and vote, we'd all live in a magical dream world.

No, we wouldn't, because a high proportion of us are still unlikely to be represented by whom we wish, no matter what happens, particularly if we don't want to be represented by anyone. In what way does voting for Rainbow f[b:f17b6b86e5][/b:f17b6b86e5]ucking George solve that problem?

I'm happy to concur with marty that democracy is a horrible failure in terms of a method of governance.

Effectively totalitarianism is some people telling you they know what's best for you and to shut up or your for it!

Democracy is some people telling you they know what's best for you but talk away sure, [i:5abd7a0261]we're not listening nah, nah na-nah, nah![/i:5abd7a0261]

But Marty you are ignoring the fundamental hypothesis I was tetsting in the first place. It wasn't to prove that simply more people voting automatically means that smaller parties will win, it was rather in direct answer to those people who claimed there was no point voting cause the only party's they would vote for had NO CHANCE of winning. I showed that on the contrary if all the people, for whom this is the reason they wouldn't vote, DID vote. Then their party would probably win a seat. Since there are a limited number of choices I picked 2 smaller parties and split half the non-voters, halfway between them.

[quote:11d0f57ed5="Box Marked Commie"]
But Marty you are ignoring the fundamental hypothesis I was tetsting in the first place. It wasn't to prove that simply more people voting automatically means that smaller parties will win, it was rather in direct answer to those people who claimed there was no point voting cause the only party's they would vote for had NO CHANCE of winning. I showed that on the contrary if all the people, for whom this is the reason they wouldn't vote, DID vote. Then their party would probably win a seat.[/quote:11d0f57ed5]

No, you're ignoring my fundamental hypothesis that, of all those many people who don't vote, only a proportion of those don't do it because they don't think their party would ever win.

And, even of that proportion of those people who don't vote for that particular reason, the chances that everybody who doesn't vote because they think their party wont win, would actually ALL vote for the same party, is ridiculous and laughable.

I've said before, the reason the mandate of the 50 odd % who don't vote can be effectively ignored is that the claim is that they're such a disparate group that they could never ever form a single mandate.

and I think that's absolutely true. If they were all gonna vote the same way, [i:11d0f57ed5]they would have realised that by now[/i:11d0f57ed5], and voted accordingly. People aren't that stupid that they'd all be forced into mass apathy on the assumption that everybody else is as apathetic. There are ways of gauging voting patterns and such-like.

To say that people are too stupid to realise that if they all voted, it would conveniently turn out that they've all voted the same way, is a big lot of ballix, propogated by minority parties who would hope to scrounge a wee cupla extra votes out of it.

You beat me to it there Chi-Lite. It's an assumption built on assumption that actually amounts to feck all. I have been in this exact situation and could not in good conscience give my vote to any of the above meaning I was forced to spoil my vote.

No I took an arbitrary figure that if everyone who didn't vote because they would be voting for a smaller party who couldn't win, DID vote then there would be a 20% increase.

Whether that figure is correct is a matter for another argument, the results were overwhelming and deliberately didn't deal with transfer of preferences within the other small parties, you could probably drop it to say 12% and get the same effective result in the overall elected candidates.

The two parties I picked, NIWC and Greens, had a similar spread of the vote so I split the extra available votes 50/50.

[quote:66338218ec="Box Marked Commie"]No I took an arbitrary figure that if everyone who didn't vote because they would be voting for a smaller party who couldn't win, DID vote then there would be a 20% increase.

Whether that figure is correct is a matter for another argument, the results were overwhelming and deliberately didn't deal with transfer of preferences within the other small parties, you could probably drop it to say 12% and get the same effective result in the overall elected candidates.

The two parties I picked, NIWC and Greens, had a similar spread of the vote so I split the extra available votes 50/50.[/quote:66338218ec]

My point is, if I've read you right, that you've took a 20% increase as an example, and for some reason arbitrarily split it 50/50 between two parties!

Which is f[b:66338218ec][/b:66338218ec]ucking STUPID, no harm til ye. I'd say that 20% is far more likely to be split at least 20 ways.

And I would also argue against the 20% as an example, but even if that's accepted, [i:66338218ec]what the hell makes you think that these people are bound to, en masse, vote for only two parties[/i:66338218ec]??? That really is a f[b:66338218ec][/b:66338218ec]ucking [i:66338218ec]ridiculous[/i:66338218ec] assumption Anto, and you know it.

Whoever said these posting limits would be good for more open debate was full of balls. All it means is that when you reach the nub of the debate, and someone argues against you, you suddenly have no regress or ability to answer the points put to you.

Which means that half of the people who could vote didn't vote at all.

What you have to do is work out how many of them didn't vote because they never beleived their party could win. I picked a number of about half those who didn't vote, rounded down to 20% Actually in this poll
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2005/Democratic_Participation/WHYNIA3.html
The number is 43% on a similar question.

Given that it was North Down, i felt the Worker's Party/Socialists/etc etc weren't in with much hope, so I picked the 2 most likely partys- who were the non sectarian parties with the next biggest votes.

And also wildly presumptuous, to the point of losing all validity as an argument.

:?

Basically what you're saying is; &quot;See all those people who didn't vote, half of them actually [i:c07b9a92fc]wanted[/i:c07b9a92fc] to vote for either the NIWC or the Greens, they were just to stupid to realise it would make a difference&quot;.

Lovely.

no, wait....

Ridiculously patronising under the guise of being helpful, like all suggestions from middle class lefties. :P

No Marty it was clearly an entirely hypothetical situation set up to illustrate how relatively small shifts in voting behaviour can have a big influence on the vote.

That's all.

If at any point you refute the validity of the figures inserted to illustrate the process then it is easy enough for you to replace them with your own figures and work through the system yourself, aren't you. If you reject the presumptions then you must reject the conclusions, not the process itself, which is mathematical and imperative (again assuming it is not fraudulent)

Yes, but with very little actual grounding in reality, and entirely arbitrarily invented voting patterns, thus making it a pretty damn useless hypothesis.

Another hypothetical situation with entirely different made up voting patterns could easily prove the opposite.

EDIT....Anto, don't be daft......&quot;It's North Down...of course they'll be voting for the NIWC and Greens&quot;!!!!!

No, they're voting for nobody, that's the whole point. To take the people who aren't voting and say, &quot;of course they would vote for these'n's, look where they live&quot;, entirely misses the point. The point is that they're not voting for anybody! If it's so obvious that they would vote for these two parties, then WHY THE F[b:c486daf605][/b:c486daf605]UCK DON'T THEY!

EDIT, but Anto, you're trying to prove a point in reality....youu're not just telling a wee story, you're trying to [i:c486daf605]prove something by it[/i:c486daf605], even though you've just made it up.
If you're just imagining a wee situation in your head, then that's fair enough. I though you were trying to make a point.

Edit - Charlie, I'm not even really having a go at democracy. I think it probably is the best of a bad bunch.
I'm only arguing with the idea that, in order to have a right to criticise something, you have to fully engage in it. If Democracy works for most people, that's alright, I've no plans to change it. But I reserve the right to disagree with it personally, even if I don't engage with it. Leave politics up to people who think they can change things, they're usually w[b:c486daf605][/b:c486daf605]ankers anyway. I'll just go my own wee way and give to Caesar what's his.

I'm just arguing against this daft idea that, if all those people who didn't vote were to suddenly decide to vote, then we'd all get what we want. We wouldn't....therefore we have every right to decide not to vote, and to rationally believe that it won't make a difference if we do......therefore there's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't have the right to criticise the process just because we didn't engage in it.

You are the spin master Anto. The link you provided is not statsitics of the number of people who did not vote because they believed their party would not win.

The question put to these people is would you have sympathy with the following statement?

[b:e5f7e6bde7]If they were going to make a difference to me in my everyday life then maybe I would consider voting[/b:e5f7e6bde7]

74% of people show some sympathy to this statement. The reasons why they feel voting currently does not make a difference to their everyday lives is not explained. So to assume it's that they didn't think their party would win is a bit much.

And MARTY it's NORTH DOWN of course it's going to be NIWC and Greens. Who the f*ck's gonna vote for the WOrkers Party in Strangford?

[quote:e1113ce7a7]Basically what you're saying is; &quot;See all those people who didn't vote, half of them actually wanted to vote for either the NIWC or the Greens, they were just to stupid to realise it would make a difference&quot;.[/quote:e1113ce7a7]

Yes marty that's exactly what I'm saying. Although not stupid, just making assumptions based on bad info.

[quote:b455855391="Chi-Lite"]Personally, I have contempt for people who are so complacent that they think everything's alright, if only people would realise it and vote, we'd all live in a magical dream world.[/quote:b455855391]

People who complain about how terrible our society is, are in my experience also the morons who complain we should all [i:b455855391]just leave those indian groups alone man, cos like.. we're ruining their civilisation man[/i:b455855391] all whilst ignoring the fact that we the hell are we to stop them having the same choices as we have.

Democracy isn't perfect, but in 7000 years we haven't come up with anything else that works as well for as many people now have we Marty?
Or do you have the magic solution? And if you do, then put your money where your frigging mouth is and get out there and change things.

People who complain about how terrible our society is, are in my experience also the morons who complain we should all [i:39b8b2a8ed]just leave those indian groups alone man, cos like.. we're ruining their civilisation man[/i:39b8b2a8ed] all whilst ignoring the fact that we the hell are we to stop them having the same choices as we have.

[quote:450b153f20="Chi-Lite"]I'm just arguing against this daft idea that, if all those people who didn't vote were to suddenly decide to vote, then we'd all get what we want.[/quote:450b153f20]

No.. I agree with you entirely on that actually.. there's a really good essay on that here : [url]http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA9A1.htm[/url]

Sorry Zwaddap.. it was a loose link, but I thought indicative of the kind of daft logic I tend to find spouted by people who complain about democracy. One example was the eejit who spent an hour telling me that less developed societies than ours should be left alone, as bringing them western culture destroys them. If you read anything by anthropologists working with those same groups, they tend to have the opinion that it's a perverse kind of logic that would refuse a culture the option to make up their own mind, and that generally (and maybe sadly) they choose a western culture because it allows a higher quality of life. It's a theory I've heard quite a few times from the kind of folk you find protesting that democracy is the scourge of humanity.

[img:f0d48c40b6]http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41005000/jpg/_41005225_mugabe203ap.jpg[/img:f0d48c40b6]
[i:f0d48c40b6]&quot;Every effort has been made to ensure a free and fair election of me as supreme overlord!&quot; Roger &quot;Mugabe&quot; Herbert, tomorrow, yesterday...[/i:f0d48c40b6]

It's about the same, last Assembly election was around 67% with 2% spoilt.

(And Karen, I wasn't being evasive, I checked my figures and you were right, that wasn't really the point I was making though, I took real figures, and followed through a simple model - and I was right about it being boring!)

For the record Karen is entirely correct about the turnout - it is normally around 60%, and very rarely falls below 50%.

Here ALL the facts and figures from ALL the NI elections since year dot, are on this pretty nifty site.

http://www.reggaereggaesauce.com/

[i:424ccd73aa]sorry - I was posting that elsewhere, but I'll leave it cause it's class, I meant [/i:424ccd73aa]

The main feeling among the media here at the King's Hall is WHY IS THE COUNT IN NI SO BLEEDIN' SLOW?!
Also a bottle of Diet Coke stung me £1.60. It's like being in an airport. Minus the planes. And plus the politicians.

captain bob's laughably low numbers in north down have me bouncing in my seat. when i still lived at home he was my mp and sent me the most spectacularly patronising response to a letter i wrote him, demanding to know why my elected representative wasn't representing me in the agreement talks - i hated him before, but i despised him entirely after receiving that. if he fails to get elected in any of the 6 seats he's standing for, bvgger my vow of an alcohol free weekend, i'm buying champagne.

My erstwhile colleague Barney Rowan polled a highly respectable 1100 votes in North Down! Which for a new independent is well respectable. I'll see if George has any skinny bastard left, Marty. And hope he also has a middle aged spread un pour moi.

For one Paisley has been masquerading as actually having a doctorate for decades.

I doubt either of them would have anything approaching genius level IQ, which I daresay a high proportion of people on here would.
[/quote:85962d7faf]

I didn't say they were geniuses, I just think they're probably at the right end of the bell shaped curve.

While I think you're right about fastfude users having above average intelligence, I doubt a high proportion of us would have IQs in the genius band. Only about 0.25% of people are above the genius threshold of about 140 and I am reliably informed by a doctor of psychology that internet IQ tests aren't at all accurate.

They need to be locked away before the moon comes out or it can get messy.

Just for smitty below, here is my top ten most-slappable bakes in politics.

10. [b:a1ff73c96d]Mark Durkan[/b:a1ff73c96d] - Blotchy faced blatherer,looks like he should be managing a GAA social club, badly.
9. [b:a1ff73c96d]Sue Ramsey[/b:a1ff73c96d] - I'd only slap her fishwife bake, cause I'd have a fair chance of outrunning her, otherwise I would die.
8. [b:a1ff73c96d]Jim &quot;weeeennnggg&quot; Rodgers[/b:a1ff73c96d] - what a wee cúnt
7. [b:a1ff73c96d]Jeffrey Donaldson[/b:a1ff73c96d] - I think some of my wish to slap him stems from his resemblance to Daniel O'Donnell.
6. [b:a1ff73c96d]David Ford[/b:a1ff73c96d] - Homophobic spawn of toad and weasel.
5. [b:a1ff73c96d]Mary Lou McDonald[/b:a1ff73c96d] - only in the context of some rough sex, I have a wee thing for her.
4. [b:a1ff73c96d]Sideshow Bob McCartney[/b:a1ff73c96d] - I'd slap him once for every constituency he polluted with his face.
3. [b:a1ff73c96d]Ian Paisley Jnr.[/b:a1ff73c96d] - Would he even notice?
2. [b:a1ff73c96d]Alex Atwood[/b:a1ff73c96d] - I have no words to express.....
1. [b:a1ff73c96d]Naomi Long[/b:a1ff73c96d] - Horrible little intolerant witch.

Could someone tell me why Basil MCrea is not in charge of the UUP. He seems in a different league from Sir Reg. He is the only senior member of the UUP with any wit. I suppose that's why they have sent him onto the BBC's live coverage.

My highlight so far is Jim 'cnuting' Rodgers only getting 800 votes in East Belfast. He has without a doubt, the most slappable coupon in local politics, just ahead of Catronia Ruane.

I'm inclined to agree with Smitty about Basil McCrea, he strikes me as the only UUP member who has both common sense and a bit of personality, which seemingly the UUP are so desperately lacking this time around.

Actually he is the first UUP senior member in my lifetime with any sort of wit (Dermot Nesbitt aside). James Molyneaux reminded me of Capt Humpherys from 'Ae you being Srved',and Trimble always struck me of being slightly autistic in his mannerism's.

I notice that the more farmland there is in a constituency, the less support there is for the Green - Fermanagh and Tyrone didn't even have Greens standing! :lol:[/quote:22a8519f7a]Yes, quite expected. North Down is the region with the second-highest ratio of BMWs per person in the world. (Bavaria is first.)

Big Ian delcares that the majority of people in Ulster voted for the DUP:

Noel: &quot;Er no actually most people have voted for other parties&quot;
Ian: &quot;Don't lecture me on democracy son, we pay your licence fee&quot;
Noel: &quot;Well thanks very much for your contributions&quot;
Ian: &quot;Well you should show some gratitude! When you lived next door to
me you were never a grateful man!&quot;

Comedy genius Ian kept very quiet before the election but the state of him last night, it was 80s Ian back on form basically saying he has no intention of doing any actual work now that the election has been won. Its only a matter of time before the reall headcase 60s Ian comes back.

From the little bit I caught on the radio there it sounds like Sideshow Bob is retiring. If you thought he was self satisfied before you should here the smug-in-defeat press release hes handed out for his retiredment.

they're flashing up a quote on the bbc website which has already made me snort water out my nose - 'i entered politics not for money, status or honours'. words. fail. me. last night i was trying to find the letter he wrote me - i wrote to him asking why my elected representative wasn't representing me at the agreement talks, and got a letter back which actually contained a sentence something along the lines of 'i have a far better understanding of the situation than you do, so i think i know best what to do'. fvckwit.

It's funny too - going by The Stats,
the only real conclusion of this poll is that people think the Ulster Unionists are a bunch of useless has-been twats.
Half their old followers seem to have bigotted it up and moved on the DUP, the rest have gone more middle-clawws than ever, and vote either Alliance or Green Party.